GULAM NABI Vs. MST MAJIDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition is directed aganist the order dated April 5, 1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu, in Criminal Revision Petition No.25 of 1985 {Gulam Nabi v. Mst. Majidan).

(2.) Mst. Majidan filed an appliction Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, against Gulam Nabi (her husband) for grant of maintenance on March 28,1980. This application, filed by Mst. Majidan, was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh by his order dated November 28,1981. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the husband Gulam Nabi preferred a revision-petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, and that revision was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated January 6,1984. While allowing the revision petition, the learned Sessions Judge set-aside the order passed by die Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, and remanded the case to the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, with the directions to pass an order on the application after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and directed the parties to appear before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate on February 13,1984. The petitioner Gulam Nabi did not appear before the learned Magistrate on the various dates fixed by the Court and the learned Magistrate, therefore, by his order dated March 26,1984, revived his earlier order dated November 28,1981, by observing that as Gulam Nabi did not appear before the Court in pursuance of the order dated January 6,1984, passed by the Revisional Court, therefore, the order dated November 28, 1981, shall remain effective. Against this order, the petitioner Gulam Nabi filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Churu. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated April 5,1991, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and it is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.